THE environmental status of the contentious Neckartal Dam Project appears to be as murky as the waters of the Fish River itself.
On Thursday The Namibian reported on the unethical assignment of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to the same company that would be supervising the project, Knight Piésold and the fact that the EIA was missing key components that may have been crucial in determining the viability of the project. The role of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) in that process is equally suspicious, and far more concerning given its role as a public body and custodian of environmental interests. According to the Environmental Management Act of 2007 and the EIA Policy of 1997 as well as MET regulations, projects of a certain scale cannot be given environmental clearance to proceed unless a sufficient EIA has been concluded and the findings thereof support the project.The construction of dams is one of these projects. These projects require a scoping analysis to be done prior to the EIA in order to determine the scope of the EIA’s contents but not report on any actual findings.In all interactions with stakeholders, Knight Piésold have stated that they have been given appropriate environmental clearance to proceed with the project. The clearance is dated 1 March 2010, the same date that the scoping analysis was approved. However, on that date an EIA had not been completed, contrary to the established requirements for clearance. Although construction is yet to begin due largely to the ongoing tender controversy, it appears that MET has given the green light, despite the fact that the EIA as it stands is missing an Environmental Flow Assessment, a key aspect of any EIA taking place in a river system.Environmental scientists and stakeholders reacted strongly to the premature environmental clearance, condemning the obvious violation of MET procedure. Following this and numerous other concerns the company issued a response wherein it was stated that on 5 November 2010 it had met with Freddy Sikabongo, Deputy Director for Environmental Affairs at MET. The parties allegedly agreed that clearance would be withdrawn until the EIA was complete. No indication has since been given that clearance was revoked and to stakeholders’ knowledge it is still valid. When questioned by The Namibian on Monday, Sikabongo stated that he did not know whether or not the EIA had been completed, could not recall a meeting regarding premature clearance and was not aware of the status quo of the project. Sikabongo’s immediate superior, Teofilus Nghitila, Director of Environmental Affairs has issued a statement that is in sharp contrast with the assertions made by Knight Piésold on behalf of their client, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry. Nghitila denies that clearance has been given for the construction of the dam and insists that the relevant legislation and policies are being strongly enforced. Furthermore, he revealed that to date there has been no EIA submitted and until there is one clearance will be withheld. He also pointed out that a violation of the legislation may result in a fine of up to N$500 000 or a 25-year prison sentence. Stakeholders have expressed doubt at these claims. Documents distributed by Knight Piésold have explicitly stated that clearance was issued by MET. The truth of this is debated by Nghitila but the assertion seems to have weight, given the need for the November 2010 meeting with Sikabongo. If it is true that clearance was given, it is admitted by Knight Piésold that it was premature and to their credit an attempt was allegedly made to conform to policy. That attempt was unsuccessful and clearance was not revoked. If clearance was not given, and will only be given following the submission of a complete and supportive EIA as per regulations, Knight Piésold is labouring under an erroneous belief and the project cannot proceed for the time being.
